Woman injured in crash when car overturns
A 25-year-old woman was hospitalized Friday morning after her car overturned in a collision at Fifth Street and Pole Line Road, Davis police said.
Megan Galloway, 25, of Fremont, was traveling on Fifth Street at about 8 a.m. when her car collided with another vehicle driven by 56-year-old Jim Provenza of Davis, who was driving on Pole Line Road, Lt. Paul Doroshov said.
Galloway’s car rolled from the impact but came to rest upright, according to the Davis Fire Department. Galloway was taken to the UC Davis Medical Center with injuries that Doroshov described as “significant” but not life-threatening.
Provenza, a Yolo County supervisor, was not injured in the crash, Doroshov said. Police are still investigating who was at fault in the collision, he added.
Short URL: http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=53513
Posted by Lauren Keene
on Jun 11 2011.
Last Login: Mon 21 May 2012 04:26:23 PM PDT
Filed under Briefly, Crime, Fire + Courts, East Davis, Local News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
For the record, there is absolutely no question as to who was at fault for the accident. Provenza ran a red light and hit Megan’s car. You also have several other facts wrong. Megan’s car did not collide with another. HIS car hit HERS and FLIPPED IT. Also, she was on Pole Line and he was on 5th.
The green light through which Megan had been driving had been green long enough for a few cars ahead of her to get across the intersection safely, so it’s not like Provenza was even running a yellow. It was a VERY solid red light. The police confirmed to us that he had in fact run a red; Megan has no doubt she had a green; and all witnesses at the scene confirmed the same. Furthermore, there were no skid marks on the road, meaning Provenza didn’t even attempt to brake before he hit her – probably because he was busy talking on his phone or texting and didn’t even see it coming.
Next time, Davis Enterprise, do some real reporting. Just because this irresponsible driver is a county supervisor doesn’t mean he should be protected from the consequences of his actions – and those consequences should include an ACCURATE news article that doesn’t obscure his outrageous behavior.
I find it rather interesting that this original deleted comment was only restored after I publicized it.
Megan Galloway was on Pole Line with a green light and Jim Provenza was driving on 5th when Provenza’s car collided with Megan’s. If you are going to write an article, then please have your facts correct. This is my daughter and I want to thank all of the passerbys, police, and paramedics for helping her.
The information for this article was provided by the Davis Police Department, which is investigating the crash and whose report was incomplete as of Friday evening. We will write an update when more information becomes available.
That’s no reason to delete my comment that has the actual information. The police knew, even before noon, who was at fault.
Here’s my comment again:
For the record, there is absolutely no question as to who was at fault for the accident. Provenza ran a red light and hit Megan’s car. You also have several other facts wrong. Megan’s car did not collide with another. HIS car hit HERS and FLIPPED IT. Also, she was on Pole Line and he was on 5th.
The green light through which Megan had been driving had been green long enough for a few cars ahead of her to get across the intersection safely, so it’s not like Provenza was even running a yellow. It was a VERY solid red light. The police confirmed to us that he had in fact run a red; Megan has no doubt she had a green; and all witnesses at the scene confirmed the same. Furthermore, there were no skid marks on the road, meaning Provenza didn’t even attempt to brake before he hit her – probably because he was busy talking on his phone or texting and didn’t even see it coming.
Next time, Davis Enterprise, do some real reporting. Just because this irresponsible driver is a county supervisor doesn’t mean he should be protected from the consequences of his actions – and those consequences should include an ACCURATE news article that doesn’t obscure his outrageous behavior.
There’s every reason to delete comments about a case when they cannot be confirmed for the public. We don’t know you from Adam or Eve or John or Jane Doe. You could be Barny Fife posting under a pseudonym on this website, so the Enterprise was acting responsibly and complying with police protocols for reporting on an ongoing investigation. That is, take the facts that the police give you and let it be at that.
Because the online medium now allows anyone and everyone to “contribute” to reporting about events, it is incumbent upon the staff of the paper to moderate comments for both accuracy and appropriateness.
For example, I live in the house immediately adjacent to the location where Scott Heinig was injured on Picnic Day this year. I had spoken to him not one hour prior to his being injured. Knowing that any contribution I might make to reporting about the incident wouldn’t help anyone connected to him, I did not post anything online.
From your comment, it is clear that you were not in the car with Megan, nor even at the scene. Your comment is nothing but hearsay, however accurate it may eventually be proven to be.
The Davis Enterprise shouldn’t make excuses for printing inaccurate information. “that what the police said” A simple apology would be nice. If the investigation was incomplete, then don’t print the details yet.” Car accident, Megan hurt, more details to follow”.
I think we’re done hearing about this. Megan’s roomate has reported the details along with her own opinion about what happened. She must have better resources than our police department and must believe that her report is better researched and better written than our newspaper reporters version. I am amazed at the details that she included, including what each driver was doing just prior to the accident. The Enterprise should hire her immediately or, better yet, the Davis Police department.
I glad that both drivers involved are not badly hurt. Friends and family of both are relieved.
I’m not sure the sarcasm was necessary, but considering the fact that we talked to the ACTUAL policeman on the case instead of the PD spokesperson, AND the person whose car was totaled, I would say yes, I did more research.
Also, nothing in my comment was opinion except for saying he was probably on his phone, and that people in power shouldn’t be protected more than anybody else. Everything else is fact.
The above was meant as a reply to Sue.
“I glad that both drivers involved are not badly hurt.”
Significant injuries to Ms. Galloway sounds like badly hurt to me. But since Mr. Provenza was unhurt, I suppose your statement is correct since only one driver, not both, was badly hurt.
OK. I’m glad both are alive. I’m sure the family and friends of both drivers are relieved. I think it is inappropriate to condemn others anonymously on the Internet. I personally don’t care what the roommate says. She wasn’t there. I will wait until there is a factual report from the Police department after a thorough investigation.
My name is also Megan. There, not anonymous!
And no, I wasn’t there, but my roommate was and so was the policeman we talked to. She would share the facts here if she could, but because she is immobile right now and can’t do anything but stare at the ceiling, I think it’s perfectly appropriate for me to set the record straight. In fact, I read my comment to her before posting it and she even had me add a couple facts, so consider it to be straight from the horse’s mouth.
Hey roomie! So everything aside from your speculation that the other driver must have been texting or using his phone is fact? Did you know that vehicles with anti-lock brakes don’t leave skid marks as their wheels are always turning regardless of how hard the brake is applied (hence, the name anti-lock).
What you have to realize is that when you make non factual statements like these then your whole letter looses credibility. We are forced to believe that all of your comments are non factual or lies.
If you are going to be so quick to point out the errors of others, it is more important than ever that you statements are especially accurate. Otherwise you just come off looking very foolish.
Dear “Skippy,”
I never claimed to be a car expert, but a quick google search shows that ABS cars still leave skid marks, just interrupted skid marks. Also, that part about no skid marks meaning there was no braking was heard from the people at the scene (including police), so you might want to take your beef up with them.
I also think it is sad that you think I “loose” credibility by citing police and people at the scene, and discount the rest of the facts as “lies” just because you think the sources are wrong about skid marks. Even if Provenza tried to stop at the last second, he was still driving recklessly and ran a solid red light. There’s no gray area there.
Then there’s the roommate’s allegation that one driver is being “protected” in some way. Again, opinion. Not based on fact. There is nothing in the Enterprise’s report that would indicate that anything of the sort was going on. This was done anonymously and done purposely to damage the reputation of the newspaper, the Davis police, and Jim Provenza. The fact that the Enterprise has allowed the post to remain, says slot about the honesty of all involved.
Sue, scroll up. First of all, I’m not anonymous. Second, the paper actually deleted my original post and it only remained after my second try. Third, I’m not purposely damaging anybody’s reputation. Provenza did that himself when he ran a red light. I’m merely pointing out the inaccuracies and factual holes of this article.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll stop wasting my time defending the victim’s account, the witness accounts, and the responding policeman’s account to people who clearly aren’t interested in the real story.
Roomie….take a deep breath and go to your “happy place”. Now, don’t you feel better?
Skippy, your obnoxious patronizing tone is almost as bad as your faulty logic. Just think how you would feel if YOUR friend had just been almost killed by no fault of her own. But don’t worry, I won’t take your bait anymore. I’m sure you and Sue can continue your banter without me.
I wonder if the investigation will find that alcohol was a factor by either party?
Don’t worry Megan’s roommate – stick around Davis long enough and you’ll get to know all the online usual suspects. I don’t know if people are retired or just out of work, but I don’t know how they find the time. If only Sue and Skippy could get together with their counterparts over at the Vanguard and devote their time and energy to volunteering instead of vitriolic commenting, the world would be a better place.
Sue – first, I’m not sure how you aren’t just as anonymous. You don’t share your last name, and your name doesn’t link to a profile or website. For all we know your name is Bubba and you are writing from Folsom prison. Second, if you were worried about “innocent until proven guilty” or the Supervisor not being convicted in the court of public opinion, you’d have a fair point. But you mention none of that. Instead, your immaturely snarky response seems more focused on defending Mr. Provenza or (even more unnecessarily) the Enterprise reporter. Perhaps you have a tie to one or both you’d like to disclose?
The Enterprise reported this story poorly. Without having the official police report or talking to the officer on the case, they should have stuck to basic facts (car overturned, woman injured and taken to trauma center, other driver unharmed), rather than saying something about “when her car collided.” And while it is good that the Enterprise uses the words “crash” and “collison” instead of “accident” (accident implies it was unavoidable, but very few crashes are unavoidable, since most are caused by inattention or unsafe behaviors), the word choice was poor. And let’s not make it seem like cars just collide into each other of their own volition, either. Hopefully the Enterprise will provide a full report when the police report is available, and correct any overt or implied errors.
I agree with Tara. Knowing the actual facts of the case ( after speaking to someone who was physically there) I am seriously dismayed at the faulty reporting of the enterprise and in the future will question everything I read. When they cant even get the facts such as what street each driver was on correct it leads me to question everything else reported in the paper.
I second Tara’s question: “Perhaps you have a tie to one or both you’d like to disclose?”
I thought there was going to be an update on who was faulted in the accident once the police report was finished. There has been no such update other than the one correcting the most glaring errors above.